In Brief
An Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax challenged a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him for alleged misconduct in 1998. The charge memorandum was issued in November 2002 without formal approval from the Disciplinary Authority (Finance Minister), though the proceeding itself had been approved for initiation. The authority later granted ex-post facto approval in January 2014. The Supreme Court held that the charge memorandum, lacking the required contemporaneous approval, was fundamentally invalid and could not be cured retrospectively. Approval for initiating proceedings and approval for issuing the charge memorandum are separate acts requiring independent application of mind. The Court allowed the appeal but reserved the authority's right to issue a fresh, properly approved charge memorandum.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.